Tonight we are going to be
dealing with a topic known as anti-ism. This simply denotes someone who is
actively against something. Let me give you a biblical example of what kind of
anti-ism I am referring to.

Acts 15:1 And certain men came down from Judea and
taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of
Moses, you cannot be saved.

Here we had some Jews that
were saying that unless these Gentiles were circumcised they would not be
saved. Now we discover later that circumcision was not binding on the Christian
but these Jews were trying to make it binding based on their opinion and that
is the kind of anti-ism I will be speaking about tonight. You have to
understand that there was a small split within the church of Christ in the 1950ís
when some brethren started drawing lines of fellowship over the following
things.

1. They say that the Lordís
Supper can only be taken out of 1 cup.

2. They are against having a
located preacher.

3. They are against having
simultaneous bible classes.

4. They are against preaching
schools especially if they have a board of directors.††

5. They are against the
church funding an orphanís home or giving to anyone other than a needy saint.

6. They are opposed to church
cooperation as they feel it will violate our autonomy.

7. They are against eating in
the building and having a kitchen attached to the building.

I think we can all agree that
we need to allow Godís word to be our guide in these matters. But in order to
find our authority from the Bible we need to understand some simple principles
that we must use to help us see if the Bible supports the anti view.

Bible authority can come in 3
different ways divine command, approved example or by necessary inference.† Not
only must we use these to find our authority we must also use the whole counsel
of God. Without these principles a person cannot teach the plan of salvation
because you cannot find one verse that just lays out the entire plan of
salvation. You must use all of Godís word to find out exactly what it takes to
be saved. It is kind of like a puzzle you have to put all the pieces together
so you can see the complete picture.

I think most of us understand
what a divine command is and what an approved example is but I want to explain
what necessary inference means.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together, as is the manner of some,

In this passage we see that
we are commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves. Well the Bible
doesnít give us an exclusive pattern on where to meet it just says to meet. So
this means that it is up to us to determine where we will meet. Perhaps it will
be in a rented building or one that we purchase or maybe in someoneís home. So
you see necessary inference simply means there are some things that are not
specified and God has left it up to us to determine where to meet. This is
sometimes called a matter of expedience. Just about every one of the views that
the anti brethren hold all boils down to matters of expediency but
unfortunately they have made these matters of opinion binding when Godís Word
does not. Now before we move on I just want you to know that I have no ill-will
toward these brethren and not all of them hold everyone single one of these
views.

Letís begin with the first
one.

1. Does the Bible teach that
we can only partake of the Lordís Supper from one cup?

Matthew 26:27Then He
took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink from
it, all of you.

You
see they would say that Jesus used just one cup so we should use just one cup.
However they fail to understand is that Jesus is using a figure of speech known
a met tawn eme (Metonymy).

A
met tawn eme is defined as a
figure of speech in which the name of one thing is used in place of that of
another associated with or suggested by it. For example, someone might ask did she like her lemonade? Then they
might respond yes she drank the whole cup. You see the cup represents the
lemonade and not the cup itself.† We use this type of speech all the time. We
might say the pot is boiling but we understand that the liquid is what is actually
boiling and not the pot.

Let
me give you two Biblical examples.

Genesis
6:11 The earth also was corrupt
before God.

Moses
wasnít talking about the dirt or the water he was talking about the people that
are on the earth. The same thing is true with our next verse.

John
3:16 For God so loved the world
that He gave His only begotten Son

Again
He is talking about the people and not the earth. So you see when Jesus was
talking about the cup he wasnít giving any special meaning to the cup itself. He
was talking about the fruit of the vine. Now think about this if we are to take
the one cup literally and take this passage to the extreme, then this would
mean that we could only partake out of the fruit of the vine from that very cup
and the cup would have to be passed around from congregation to congregation on
every Sunday which of course is impossible to do. Sometimes it helps to take a
thought to the extreme to show the error in it.

When
it comes the Lordís Supper we see that the bread and the fruit of vine are to
be used however, how these items are to be dispersed are a matter of expediency.
You can use one cup perhaps a tall glass or short glass. You could use multiple
cups. When it comes to unleavened bread you could just pass the bread around by
itself or have it on a tray. None of these are wrong because they are matters
of expediency. So if a congregation wants to drink out of one cup good for them
they have that right but no one has the right to make their way of partaking
the Lordís Supper binding but this is what the anti brethren have done.

Another
view that some anti brethren hold is that there is no authorization for a
located preacher. Now before I show the authority for this again I want to
stress that having a located preacher is a matter expediency. A church does not
have to have one but at the same time the church is authorized to have one.

1.
There is need for the gospel to be preached.

Mark
16:15 †And He said to them, Go
into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

2.
There is a need for preachers.

††††††††

Romans
10:14 How then shall they call on
Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom
they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

†

3.
Paul was a preacher and he was located at Ephesus for 3 years Acts 20:31 and he was located at Corinth for 18 months Acts 18:11. More examples could be cited but this shows that a preacher can be located at a congregation.† To go one
step further we also see that a congregation can support a preacher
financially.

1
Corinthians 9:13 Do you not know
that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple,
and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?†
Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live
from the gospel. †

Galatians 6:6††Let him who is taught
the word share in all good things with him who teaches.

I
have clearly shown that the Bible does authorize a located preacher and that he
can be supported by the congregation.

3. They are against having
simultaneous bible classes.

Before I show the authority
for this I want point out again that this is a matter of expediency and if a
congregation wants to have Bible classes all in the same room for the very
young to the very old it is their right to do so. But in the same manner it is
ok to put the younger ones in one class and the older in another.† Now let me
prove this from the scripture.

Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit,† teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you

Please notice that this is
generic command to teach. The how is not supplied. This means it has been left
up to us on how to teach. Now letís apply this to the church. First of all we need to recognize that the eldership
has the responsibility of watching over and shepherding the flock.

Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the
flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the
church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

As these men shepherd the
flock there are many decisions they have to make that are in the realm of
expediency. For instance they can determine what the best time is for the
church to meet and worship. They can also determine the best use for the churchís
money. They also have the right to determine the best way to keep the flock spiritually
strong. This means they can decide to have Bible classes.

Now we are told to submit to
the elders in such matters in Heb. 13:17
so this means we should attend these Bible classes.† Now to take this a step
further the Elders can break the people up into different age groups so that
they can be taught at their level which will greatly enhance their spiritual
growth. Common sense tells us that it would be very challenging to teach the
Bible if a 3 year old and a 40 year old were in the same room. So it makes sense
to divide the people up by age.

Some
anti-brethren are opposed to preaching schools especially if they have a board
of directors.

Once
again we have a matter of expediency. There are a number of ways to train
Christians so that they in turn will be able to teach others or take leadership
roles within a given congregation. It may be through a preaching school, by an
eldership, by another evangelist or by another Christian. There is not an
exclusive pattern.

2 Timothy 2:2† And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses,
commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Please
note that Paul is telling Timothy that he is to teach other faithful men so
they can in turn teach others. The command is to teach the how is not provided
which once again means that we can decide what way to teach them. Timothy could
teach them one on one or a school could be used.

Acts 19:9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the
Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples,
reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.† And this continued for two years,
so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and
Greeks.

It
should be easy for us to see that it is ok to train men in a preaching school.
We should also be able to understand that these men can be supported by
individuals or churches in order to help train these men. Since this falls
under the realm of personal judgment there is nothing inherently wrong with
having a board of directors who play a key role in making sure these men are
getting thoroughly trained in Godís word.

Now
in this next point I want to show that the church has authority to give to an
orphans home and to someone other than a saint. The only passage that we the have in the NT which
talks about us taking care of orphans in found in:†

James
1:27 Pure and undefiled religion
before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their
trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Let
me define what an orphan is: children whose parents either are no longer
alive or no longer function as parents (as the result of having abandoned their
children)†

Now
the anti-brethren will say this passage is talking about individuals only and
so it cannot apply to the church. Now I am in no way saying that the church
only should take care of orphans but that it is a responsibility of both
individual and church and let me show you how.

James
1:26 If anyone (singular) among
you (second person plural, referring to the church) thinks he is religious,
and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one's religion is
useless.

James 2:1My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Lord of glory, with partiality.† For if there should come into your assemblyÖ

You
see James is talking to the church and this work can be done collectively or
individually. To say this only applies to the individual is to say that the
church cannot practice pure and undefiled religion. Now I want to show a
pattern of this as we continue.

Galatians 6:10 Therefore,
as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially
to those who are of the household of faith.

Galatians
6:11 †See with what large letters
I have written to you(second person plural, referring to the church)

Again
this is referring to those in the church and what they can do collectively or
individually. I also want point out in verse 10 that good is to be done to ALL
which includes both the sinner and the saint. Now letís examine our next verse:

1
Corinthians 11:28 But let a man
examine himself, and so let
him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Please
notice the word ďhimselfĒ is the same Greek word found in James 1:27.

In
these verses Paul is talking about what a person does when they partake of the
Lordís Supper which is done as a church but it is also done individually. This
should be proof enough that the word ďhimselfĒ does not exclude the church
which means that James 1:27 can be a work of the church as well.

1 Corinthians 16:2On the
first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside,
storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

Galatians 6:6†Let him who is
taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.

Notice
Paul is informing of us our individual duty of giving which is put into the
church treasury to carry out the work of the church such as paying the preacher
in Gal. 6:6.
All of these passages go together to show that James 1:27 and Gal. 6:10 is a work of an individual and of the church. Besides this we have other
scriptures that teach that the church is to help both the sinner and the saint
which would include the orphans.

2
Corinthians 9:13 while, through
the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your
confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them
and all men,

Here
Paul is writing to the church at Corinth and he is commending them on their
liberal sharing with both saints and with all, which would include those who
were not saints.

Acts
20:35 "I have shown you in
every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And
remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give
than to receive.' "

This
goes right along with the fact that we are to be like God who allows it rain on
the just and the unjust.

Matthew
5:43 You have heard that it was
said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.† But I say to you,
love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate
you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,† that you
may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the
evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.† For if
you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax
collectors do the same?† And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do
more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?† Therefore you
shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

To
say that the church can only help the saint is like saying the church cannot be
like God. I want us to notice the argument Paul makes to try and convert the
people at Lystra.

Acts
14:15 Men, why are you doing
these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you
that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the
heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,† who in bygone
generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways.† Nevertheless He did
not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from
heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.

This
speech was designed to motivate these people to turn away from their idols
because God does good to both the sinner and the saint. Now who are we to say
that the church cannot be like God and give to both the sinner and the saint?

We
can also see that the church in Jerusalem was helping the widows and others in
Acts 6.

Acts 6:1
Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying,
there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their
widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

Notice
in this text we can see that the church was exercising benevolence as they were
helping some on a daily basis. Now it does not tell us who was receiving this
aid other than the widows but based on the passages we have already looked at it
certainly could have included saints and non-saints. Now most of those who hold
the anti view will say that yes widows who are really widows can be taken care
of by the church based upon.

1
Timothy 5:16 If any believing man
or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be
burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows.

Within
this text not only do we see a responsibility of the church to take care of the
widows, we also see that a family member also has a responsibility of taking
care of their widows. In fact Paul stressed this earlier in:

1 Timothy 5:8† But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those
of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

We
see implied in verse 16 that the church had been burdened by such widows but
Paul is wanting those who call themselves Christians to step up and take care
of their own family so that the church could focus in on those who were really
widows.

The
Bible simply says that the widows are to be relieved but it does not say how
they are to be relieved. This falls under human judgment and is a matter of
expediency. This means the elders would determine in what manner these widows
would be taken care of.

The
same thing is true in.

†

James 1:27†Pure and undefiled
religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in
their trouble

Now
the word ďvisitĒ means to ďlook upon or
to care forĒ and this is not a one time action but a continuous one.† Again the
how is not given, so therefore it becomes a matter of expediency on how this is
done. Now does it seem logical to you that the church can help widows but yet
it cannot help orphans yet we see both of them mentioned together in this same
verse?

Now
another thing that these anti brethren oppose is having a home for an orphan
such as Mount Dora or Raintree Village Childrenís home because they would say
this is a human institution and the church cannot give to a human institution.
Please remember the fact that the scriptures do not tell us how to take care of
these orphans which gives us the right to figure out how this will be done. Now
the Mount Dora or Raintree Village Childrenís home are exactly what they say
they are. They are a home, nothing more or nothing less and it would certainly
be ok for a church to give funds to build these homes and maintain them so that
the orphans are taken care of. Providing a home for an orphan is God ordained.

Ephesians 6:4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring
them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

God
has always wanted children to have parents and a home in which they can be
provided for and trained in the way of the Lord. Now these parents can either
be their biological parents or their legal parents and this is exactly what we
have in these childrenís homes. Now some of these anti brethren would argue
that these homes are not real homes because they are incorporated and have a
board of directors. But they are wrong on this issue because many if not all
the states now require a home caring for orphans to be incorporated. This is
certainly allowed by Gods word because Paul teaches us that we are to obey the
laws of the land in Rom. 13. That is exactly what these homes are doing.

Now
I am not suggesting this is the only way that orphans can be taken care of
because a person could open their home to an orphan but one must go through a
legal process in order to do so. The same thing holds true for churches they also
must be incorporated. Now if incorporation means that a childrenís home is not
a home well then that would mean that a church that is incorporated is not a church.
That is where this way of thinking will take you.

The
anti-brethren would say that the church could give money to a needy saint who
needed help with their needy orphan, but when they make incorporation or a
board of directors a dirty word then what will they do when their brother in
need has to become incorporated to meet to state law? Well if they will hold
the line to their teaching then they would no longer be able help these needy
saints simply because they complied with the law of the land. Do you see how
silly this becomes? A child in my home will be taken care in a very similar
manner as a child in the childrenís home and whatever the church can do for me
and my orphans it can also do for the orphans in a childrenís home.

I
believe I have clearly shown that homes for orphans can be taken care of by the
church or by individuals and the church or individuals can help both the saint
and the sinner.

Now
letís deal with Church Cooperation.

†What
I mean by this is when one church helps another church in various ways. Now the
anti position speaks against church cooperation in many different ways and
these ways vary from one anti group to the other. So, instead of speaking about
all their views I thought it would be easier just show what the Bible says
about Church cooperation. I believe I can show you from scripture where one
congregation can help another in both the physical realm and the spiritual
realm without taking away from their autonomy.

Acts
11:27 And in these days prophets
came from Jerusalem to Antioch.† 28 Then one of them, named Agabus,
stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine
throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.† 29
Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to
the brethren dwelling in Judea.† 30 This they also did, and sent it
to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

We
can easily see that the church at Antioch sent relief which could include anything
from food, supplies or even money to the elders of the church at Jerusalem.
Notice the church at Antioch did not send a letter saying that the funds had to
be used in a certain way because they donít have the right to do so. Instead it
would be left up to the elders of the Jerusalem church to decide the best way
to use and to hand out the relief. Now letís take a look at:

Acts 15:23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and
the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia: Greetings.† Since we have heard that some who went out from us have
troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be
circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no such commandment
--† it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men
to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,† men who have risked their lives for
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.† We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who
will also report the same things by word of mouth.† For it seemed good to the
Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things:† that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things
strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you
will do well. Farewell.† So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch; and
when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the letter.† When
they had read it, they rejoiced over its encouragement.† Now Judas and Silas,
themselves being prophets also, exhorted and strengthened the brethren with
many words.

We
learn several things about church cooperation from these verses.

First
we can see that a church can send men out to another church and that they can
send them a letter that has to do with spiritual matters. These men also went
out and exhorted and strengthened the churches. We can also see where multiple
churches helped support Paul as he preached to the church at Corinth.† 2 Cor. 11:8;
Phil. 4:15.
By them supporting Paul it was possible for him to focus in on Corinthís
spiritual needs.

†So
what have we established? There isnít an exclusive pattern on how one church
can help another because it can include both physical or spiritual needs and in
no way does either congregation lose its autonomy because of this. Since there
isnít an exclusive pattern for one church helping another this opens it up to
human judgment, therefore it is completely acceptable for one church to send
written material such a tracts or song books to another church. Or if one
church is evangelizing by means of a radio program or TV program several
churches can send money to that one church to help them with that particular
program. Now the anti-brethren would say itís ok to have a radio program or TV
program but if the one church doesnít have enough money to keep it going it
would be wrong for other churches to send them money so they could continue
their radio or TV program.

They
would further say that you canít find an example of one church giving to
another so that evangelism can take place. But this is untrue. I have already
shown that one church can help another church with both physical and spiritual
needs. We can show from the example of Paul that multiple churches helped him
in evangelizing (2 Cor. 11:8) so the church would not be burdened and then we can
see that aid was sent to Paul by men from the churches in 2 Cor. 11:9,
Phil. 4:16.

Now
tell me what is the difference between a church sending funds to another church
through the mail so that a preacher can be supported in his evangelistic work
in the radio or the TV program. There is no difference. The money sent to Paul
was for the purpose of evangelizing and the money sent through mail to another
church is sent for the purpose of the preacher to evangelize.

This
is certainly a work that we can be a part of but it in no way takes away from
the responsibility of a church to evangelize in their own area.† Sometimes a
church might need a speaker and so it would be completely acceptable for
another church to send them one.† These examples could go on and on but this
should be enough to show scripturally that individual congregations can
cooperate with one another without violating their autonomy.

Now letís take a look at the
topic of eating in the church building and having a kitchen attached to
building. Those who hold the anti view will argue that you cannot eat in the
church building and they get this from the following passage.

1 Corinthians 11:22 †What! Do you not have houses to eat
and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have
nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

What they have done is taken
the scripture completely out of context and they make it teach something that
it does not teach. In context Paul was condemning these people because they
were not observing the Lordís Supper instead they were having this feast and
getting drunk. From this alone we can see that Paul is not condemning a common
meal he was only condemning them for making a mockery of the Lordís Supper.

However, just for a minute
letís play along and say that this verse teaches what the anti brethren want it
to say. If we are to take this to its literal end then the verse would mean
that Christians can only eat and drink in their homes. Thatís where this view
will literally take you. However it is very interesting that these same
brethren will many times have a water fountain in the building they meet in. You
find many times they are not consistent in their own rules. You see they would
have to admit that they were committing sin every time they take a drink out of
the water faucet.

Many times these same
brethren will start up their church in a personís home which has a kitchen
attached to it yet that doesnít seem to apply. If they are to be consistent
then no one should be allowed to eat in that house again. Does this seem
extreme? Of course it does but this is where this type of thinking will lead.

Here is what the problem is.
Many of these brethren do not seem to fully understand what the church is? The
church is not some building made of brick and mortar because the people make up
the church. There is no such thing as a holy building today. Christians are the
temple of God (1Cor. 3:16). Many of the church buildings have signs that
says the church meets here so that people will understand that the people are
the church and not the building.

†In the first century the
church met in various places. Sometimes they met in peoples homes Rom. 15:6; 1Cor. 16:19; Col. 4;15 and
at least once they met in an upper chamber of one house in Acts 20:8.
Sometimes they met in the temple Acts 2:46 and in other places Acts 19:9.
The point is this no one should assign some special significance to the place
the church meets nor can one find an exclusive pattern where a church should
meet in a specific place. Besides of all this I can show an example from
scripture where Paul himself ate in the church building if you will.

Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the
disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day,
spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.† There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together.† And in a window sat a
certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was
overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third
story and was taken up dead.† But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him
said, "Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him."† Now
when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long
while, even till daybreak, he departed.

Please note that in verse 7
they (plural) came together to break bread. This is talking about partaking of
the Lords Supper. However, in verse 11 after Paul raised Eutychus from the dead
he ate a common meal. The reason why we know this was a common meal was because
he was the only one doing the eating and the Greek word used for eating denotes
one tasting and enjoying a meal. This word is never used in reference to
partaking of the Lordís Supper. So here we have a scriptural example of someone
eating in the church building. Besides this we can see that it was a common
thing for the 1st century Christian to eat with each other in their homes which
no doubt was also used as their place of worship.

Acts 2:46† So continuing daily with one accord in the temple,
and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and
simplicity of heart

Now
one other response they have to this is to say well itís ok to have a kitchen
and to eat together in if an individual paid for the kitchen and it wasnít
built out of the church treasury.†

This
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because if it is a sin to have a kitchen
and eat in the building built from church funds it should also be a sin even if
an individual pays for it. This shows us more inconsistency. Now every church
should be good stewards of their money but how they use that money on their
meeting places and other areas is up to that congregation and itís elders to
decide.

For
instance a church building doesnít have to have a kitchen no more than it has
to have running water, bathrooms or electricity. However if the elders decide
that it will be beneficial for the church to have these things then they have
the right to make that decision because it is a matter of expediency. To say
that it is a sin to have a kitchen or a fellowship area to be built from church
funds and then turn around and say it not a sin if an individual does it cannot
be supported by the Bible because this is just a matter of opinion and
Christians should never try to make their opinion into law or that Christian
will be going beyond that which is written.

The
same authority that anti brethren have to build or rent a building to meet in
is the same exact authority that another congregation has to build a kitchen or
a place of fellowship. When you think about it there is absolutely no
difference between this building and your own home. So therefore if it is ok to
have church in your own home which has a kitchen and that you can eat in then
should the same should hold true for this building that we meet in that is
owned by the church?

The
same anti brethren are very inconsistent because most of them would find it
acceptable to build a preachers home out of church funds which has a kitchen.
If it is acceptable to build a preachers home and it have a kitchen then using
this same line of expediency it should be ok for a church building to have a
kitchen or area for fellowship.

Well
there you have it. I have done my best to show that all views that the
anti-brethren hold are matters of opinion and should not be allowed to cause
division.

We
have to be careful as Christians that we donít strain out a gnat or swallow a
camel.

If
you are not a Christian, there are two parts in the plan of salvation.

GOD'S
PART

†1.
The great love of God for man (John 3:16)

†2.
He gave His Son, Jesus Christ, as the Saviour (Luke 19:10)

†3.
Sent the Holy Spirit as a guide (John 16:13)

†4.
Gave the Gospel as "the power" unto salvation (Romans 1:16)

†5.
Provided justification by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9)

MAN'S
PART

†1.
Hear the Gospel. (Romans 10:17)

†2.
Believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15)

†3.
Repent of past sins (Acts 17:30)

†4.
Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 10:10)

†5.
Be Baptized for the remission of your sins (Mark 16:16)

†6.
Be faithful unto death (Revelations 2:10)

†

†God
has done His part; will you do yours?

If
you are a Christian and are not walking in the light (1 John 1:6), Jesus said
that if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If
you are subject to the invitation, please come forward as we stand and sing.